The Manager of Collection Information at the Metropolitan Museum of Art came to speak to staff at the Art Institute of Chicago. Ms. Choi spoke about the history of data at the Met, and the long road to unifying information and providing broader access. This comes at an important time at AIC, when we are reevaluating our digital asset management system, and continuing to work on improving legacy data.

It was fascinating to hear the story of cataloging at an institution similar to ours in age and collecting scope, but which is substantially bigger. In the mid-twentieth century, there was one department tasked with cataloging museum collections. This changed in the 1970s with the disbanding of centralized cataloging, which was a result of both budgetary constraints and a lack of network infrastructure throughout the sprawling facilities. So up until recently, every curatorial department - 23 in total - had its own system for cataloging their objects and standards for this work. There was no unified search system in place for all collections at the Met. With new leadership at the museum, there came a push to integrate these databases.

By the early 2000s all departments had to make the migration to the collection management system TMS (if they weren’t already using it), and by 2010 these were merged into one master TMS database. Because each curatorial department was working in a siloed way, there were dramatic inconsistencies in how items were cataloged. Artist names had variations in spellings - sometimes spelled in English, sometimes in their native language - and sometimes information about the dates they were alive and cities they were born and died in were included, sometimes it was not. Another notable challenge was the object type, which is now a required field. Often, the most notable characteristic of an object - a card being a baseball card, for example - wasn’t actually included in the object record. Artists and object type are two important ways of searching for objects in collection management systems, so these issues needed to be addressed.

There was also a question of how to address cataloging as it pertained to nationality, culture, and geography. Different curatorial foci had different ways of approaching this, especially given the broad timelines covered at the Met. In the end, it was decided that this concept was required for cataloging, but this information could still exist in multiple fields. It is a fairly concept set of ideas, and a flexible approach was embraced so as to not force equivalencies where they did not exist.

Some field terms did not end up being standardized: medium, dimensions, culture, object name, and classification. A substantial effort went into the unification of these siloed cataloging systems, and in the end, the team working on this effort had to weigh impact versus effort. When dealing with tens or hundreds of thousands of terms, it makes sense to focus time and attention on the heavy hitters. Also, existing controlled vocabularies were leveraged wherever possible, so fields like object name were linked to Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus. Why reinvent the wheel when there are already widely-adopted thesauri applicable to collections like this one?

All of this work was made possible because it was an institutional priority. The director decided that this was a key initiative - that all the databases be integrated and data unified as much as possible - and appointed a working group to decide on cataloging rules. When there were disagreements, the director stepped in as mediator. Through this collaborative effort, with a high-level individual stewarding through and removing obstacles, the team was able to make substantial progress.

Now that there is a unified collections management system in place for data entry, search, and discovery, work is ongoing to continue to improve the quality of catalog records. Each curatorial department is still responsible for the cataloging of their objects, as the museum still does not have a centralized cataloging department. This is challenging due to the variation in departmental staffing and structure - some have staff dedicated to this work but others only have curators or collection managers who must also attend to a wide range of other duties. The museum also contracted with a vendor to work on tagging catalog records on the museum’s collections portal on their website. The museum providing instructions and training: tag what you see and when in doubt, don’t tag. This type of more informal data generation is still very subjective, and after quality control, some tags ended up being removed by museum staff. Where this metadata creation proved useful was in cases where catalog records were scant and basic terms could be employed for improved discovery - man, dog, landscape, etc.

Much of this work was undertaken to improve efficiencies within the museum. Conservation staff no longer needed to search across multiple databases when dealing with objects from multiple departments, for example. However, these efforts have benefited the public, as well. This data is pushed to the museum’s collections portal on their website. Greater consistency in data entry and the use of controlled vocabularies makes searching more intuitive for users. Additionally, analytics are being generated and evaluated to inform ongoing collections accessibility efforts and cataloging work at the museum.

The collection landing page has been redesigned with users in mind based on information gleaned from analytics. It now features groups of collections based on ideas (color, artist, subject) rather than by search facets alone. These groups are periodically swapped so visitors might experience something new each time they visit. Looking at scroll mapping, it has become clear that certain parts of object records on the website are not viewed - related objects, for example - and that there is generally too much scrolling per page. The team is working on redesigning these pages for a more compact and user-friendly design to improve visibility of this information. The Met also employs more active feedback mechanisms through user surveys, user testing, and a/b testing. Analytics can only provide so much information about how and why certain aspects of collection records are being viewed. Having opportunities to reach out to individuals using the site more directly grants staff useful insight into how they can make improvements.

Analytics also helps the museum to understand how the public is finding their way to collections records. While some individuals navigate directly to the collections portal, and search via groups, facets, or textual search, many others are redirected to the site. Pinterest is the number one referral service for collection pieces, and it has contributed to some fairly low-profile objects having hundreds of times more traffic than would be expected otherwise. The same goes for social media sites like Reddit, an object can be viewed more times in the span of a few days than would otherwise happen over the course of years based on one post to one of these sites. While the origination of this traffic may not yield many visits that extend beyond a one or two second click in and out of the site, it does help raise visibility for the museum’s collections. It also helps inform folks about the type of objects that museums like the Met collect and make accessible.

It was inspiring to hear about Ms. Choi and her team’s work, and how enthusiastic she is about connecting people - both inside the institution and outside it - to these collections via useful data. She stressed that this work is never done, and that perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of good. This was reassuring to me, as our department faces hundreds of thousands of our own records which need some serious attention and unification. I also walked away from the presentation thinking more about how valuable it is to provide access to these materials, with the hopes that they’ll reach new audiences and allow for new contexts to emerge for these objects. I’m so thankful she came to speak at AIC!

The Art Institute of Chicago celebrates the 125th anniversary of the opening of its Michigan Avenue building December 2018. This structure is the second home to the museum, but it is tied to the institution’s identity. There have been a number of campaigns produced to highlight this moment, and fortunately, the photographic archives have been featured through these efforts.

The museum’s social media platforms, including Instagram, have featured a number of images - sourced both from institutional archives and from outside repositories - and it’s been fascinating seeing the response. Though our department was not directly involved in the selection or sourcing of these images, these are some of the “top hits” in terms of iconic views of the exterior and interior of the building. The photographs have prompted folks to share their experiences visiting the museum, their interest in the landscape around the building in the early days, and their appreciation for a glimpse back in time. The response underscored for me the public’s interest in this institutional history.

Our department was more actively involved in the creation of a promotional video and behind-the-scenes blog post, both of which focused on the institutional photographic archives. For the blog, I worked with the communications team to provide information about the day-to-day tasks involved with working in the archives. Following a format previously used on the blog, I was given a set of questions about my job - more specifically, relating to the photographic materials themselves and what goes into caring for the collection. It was wonderful diving into the topic, trying to reflect on how to explain things to a broad audience. It’s easy to get caught up in jargon used in the field, so working with other staff was helpful in keeping that tendency in check. I also really appreciated the opportunity to explain some of the work that happens at the museum which many folks may not consider. So much of what happens at the museum is invisible to visitors - I think it’s important to let them peek behind the curtain. It humanizes the work, and people often seem excited to learn about it.

One of my colleagues from our department then teamed up with us to capture some images around the archives space. She photographed me looking through photographic materials, a sampling of media in the archives (formats, bases, etc), and our digitization station. I don’t normally enjoy being in front of the camera, but it was nice to partner with a talented photographer to highlight this collection. And, it’s worthwhile making visible the work of archivists, and not just the archives themselves. We then chose some highlights of digitized negatives to feature along with these documentary images, to help show the depth and breadth of content in the collection. You can read the full post and see the images here.

The second project involved a substantial amount of legwork to compile compelling images for a video narrative. I teamed up with the museum’s videographer to assess what types of images would work well. Many of the negatives and transparencies had to be digitized again - a substantial portion of previously digitized archival materials are small files and don’t meet our current standards - then edited, and formatted for prints. The video shoot featured these archival reproductions, as well as a small sampling of original large format negatives and 35mm slides. He also captured scenes around the archives room, and a few scenes including me functioning as archival caretaker. I was glad that he chose to include contemporary images our department is creating as a way of tying the past to the present. It also shows that the institution is thinking about the future as it reflects on its past.

The video project could have focused primarily on the images themselves, essentially functioning as a dynamic slideshow of sorts. Instead, the videographer understood how compelling the archives-as-collection are, and made the decision to feature the original materials, space, and work involved in caring for them as part of the story. History doesn’t preserve itself, intervention is necessary. It felt good to see that acknowledged in the final product, which you can find here.

On one hand, all these initiatives function as outreach in that they raise awareness of a collection largely hidden to the public. Folks who maybe hadn’t considered that institutional archives like this exist have the opportunity to see the amazing images that tell part of the story of the museum. Perhaps equally important in the second two projects was the chance to make visible archival work. Archivists are key to the proper management of collections like this one, to preserve and provide access to materials that help to tell part of our collective story. As such, projects that highlight the individuals that steward the collections help to advocate for this profession. I hope that these projects positively contribute to the growing number of online opportunities which feature the skills, knowledge, and passion of archivists.

The last two sessions wrapped up our review of the toolkit developed by the original MASS Action organizers and authors. The second to last convening covered the last chapter, which focused on pedagogy. Social justice efforts in museums have commonly come out of education departments. The toolkit interviewed educators from multiple different museums, and they covered topics relating to identity both as it pertained to the public-facing and behind-the-scenes work.

One passage in particular succinctly summarized the challenges museums face in this context:

“Museums hold institutional and cultural power as established by their colonial and imperial histories. Like other institutions (schools, hospitals, housing, policing, etc.) the ways in which museums maintain that power is by uncritically and unreflectively upholding the very systems that define this power. These systems, intersecting assemblages of capitalism, patriarchy, whiteness, ableism, and cis- and heteronormativity, have been historically presented as “objective” in museum interpretation and continue to be the lens by which objects and narratives are interpreted. As such, museum educators are tasked with making these interpretations accessible to audiences, the burden being to promote critical thinking and inquiry skills that deconstruct this “objectivity”. In our interviews, it became evident that one system of power that manifests most saliently is white supremacy.” (Greenberg, Antar, Callihan, 2017, p. 147)

Though educators are often asked to open minds and promote new ways of looking and thinking, the reality is that there is institutional history that comes into play. Meta-conversations that relate to the museum as a site of human intervention may not always be possible or encouraged. And in some cases, these conversations can resurface trauma for either educators or visitors. It can thus be tricky to navigate discussions about collections, exhibitions, and museums.

One key takeaway from this chapter was the idea of confronting whiteness, and talking about non-racist vs. anti-racist work within museums. By “othering” everything other than whiteness, it becomes hard to see all of the ways in which whiteness impacts day-to-day work. We can’t expect change to happen without becoming aware of the ways in which identity and societal norms come into play, especially as it pertains to white privilege. And importantly, though the focus of this chapter was on educators, all museum staff must be more self-aware and willing to be reflexive. Institutional transformation only happens when there is a critical mass.

The session started with an ice-breaker warm up, which asked us to work in pairs to get to know each other on a deeper level. This meant that we had to come up with questions we wish our colleagues asked us, rather than “how was your day?” I enjoyed this way of thinking about relationship-building in a professional setting. I ended up discussing the idea of asking what project or task someone was excited about as a way of connecting with them. Given how overworked folks are, it’s a good opportunity to focus on something that sparks their curiosity or allows them to develop or flex skills. It also provides insight into their values and passions.

The facilitators then provided a helpful overview of the five key themes of the chapter:

Working conditions

Critical reflection

Centering anti-oppression work

Engaging with discomfort

Rigorous practice

All of these ideas came into play during the next discussions we had in groups. We were asked to come up with big, beautiful, scary questions “which will inspire us to take risks and head into uncertain territory” as Karleen Gardner - one of the educators interviewed - described (Greenberg, Antar, Callihan, 2017, p. 159).

I was thankful for the opportunity to listen in as others spoke candidly about the challenging questions they asked themselves. I knew immediately what big scary question I could ask myself, but struggled to speak up, ironic given the subject: “what do I have to lose in being more outspoken about these important issues?” In reality, I know what’s holding me back - imposter syndrome, generalized anxiety, and learned “feminine” docileness. These should not be crutches or excuses to do the necessary work to make our institution more equitable. Discomfort for me is placing myself in the conversation, rather than trying to do what I can silently, as an invisible force. It is feeling uncomfortable feelings in making myself a presence, taking up space, and making my opinions heard - regardless of how others perceive them. Some degree of conflict is necessary in confronting whiteness, and I need to learn how to handle that. I was finally able to share out to the group this question, and they were all supportive and understanding. I am still sitting with this, and thinking about ways I can break free.

We reconvened together as one group at the end to talk about some of our collective questions. It was eye-opening and helpful to learn about what others are thinking and feeling. And the experience underscored for me how important relationship-building and trust are with this type of work. Willingly embracing discomfort and conflict can only happen when you feel like you’re on the “same team” as someone else. Even though doing the work to make our museum more equitable will benefit everyone, it can still be viewed as a zero-sum game or an attack. As such, we need to be transparent and authentic with one another, so that white folks like myself aren’t blinded by defensiveness.

The last session of MASS Action was an opportunity to come together and reflect on what ideas we covered, what we got out of the toolkit and meetings, and what work was being done in the museum. The organizers shared out on three different initiatives that related to our conversations about equity. The first was a relationship with Enrich Chicago, which is training folks in positions of power at the museum to help undue legacies of racism. The second is a grant-funded project called Diversifying Art Museum Leadership Initiative, the goal of which is to diversify curatorial and management roles through paid fellowships and strategic mentorships. And finally, the museum has partnered with artEquity to investigate the dynamics of the museum and create training to help make the institution more inclusive and equitable. It is heartening to see that leadership is committed to this work, such that they are willing to admit that change is needed, to reach out to those with experience facilitating this work, and to provide resources through funding where it is necessary.

I didn’t expect for MASS Action to be so centered around internal relationships at the museum, but it makes a lot of sense. I found myself getting impatient at times, wishing that there were more concrete actions I could take in my day-to-day work to contribute. In the end, we need to approach change with empathy, and empathy is easier when we have already created bonds with one another. There will be uncomfortable conversations and challenging times ahead, if we collectively pursue this work of equity. Balancing kindness and honesty will help us to move forward together.

This fall I had the opportunity to show a group of youths the photographic institutional archives at the Art Institute of Chicago. I have previously toured the space and explained the collection to staff curious about our holdings, visiting archivists, and interns. As such, most folks have had some background in cultural heritage or interest in pursuing it as a career. This was my first chance to connect the archives with this type of group, many of whom are learning about and often new to the range of professions that connect with the work of our department: photography and imaging, museum studies, and archives and information science.

The teens who visited were enrolled in a photography class at Marwen, taught by one of my colleagues in the department. Her focus in the class has been imaging as a means of telling stories, often involving personal objects (collections, archives) as a way of weaving a narrative. She brought the group to the museum both to show them how other artists have approached these ideas, but also to give them a peek behind the scenes of the work we do in our department: documenting the work of the museum and archiving those images for future use.

My colleague requested that I discuss my path to this line of work as well as what the job entailed. Given that many in the group are thinking about college and what they might want to do professionally, this was a fantastic opportunity to show them one way to arrive in a career like this one. I did not realize that museums, archives, and libraries had such a wide range of jobs within them until I started a few internships in colleges. I would love to make sure more folks area aware of these career options, as I have found this path to be so rewarding. With this in mind, I told them about my background in art and photography, volunteer internships, and professional experience working in several Chicago area institutions. I shared how my love of both history and imaging have blended seamlessly into this job, and how it affords me the chance to continually pursue curiosity.

Reproduction prints of AIC staff at work over the decades

She also asked me to gather some original archival materials and some corresponding reproduction prints to show the students. Though I mentioned the core topics covered in the archives (documentation of collections, exhibitions, programs, visitors) I tried to stick to three main themes within the prints to demonstrate to breadth of subjects: World’s Columbian Exposition images, gallery and architectural views, and documentation of museum staff at work. The last theme in particular connected to my discussion about the unexpected types of jobs one might find in a museum like this one. Even more interestingly, these views show how work has both changed and stayed the same over time. Being able to talk about the role of documentation through photography in a museum, for example, and see images that represent that work over time, in addition to touring our facilities today helps to tell a fuller story about this behind-the-scenes work.

I also pulled some original archival material to show where these reproduction prints came from, especially given this group’s interest in photography. I made sure a range of sizes and film bases were represented, including black and white negative, color negative, and color transparency materials. Though these students are using digital technology to create their images, it was clear they were still interested in and connected with these negatives and transparencies. Even within an archives which is fairly narrowly focused by content (institutional archives) and materiality (photography), there is still a fascinating degree of variety. I hope that these materials underscored that fact for the group.

Original archival negatives and transparencies

Finally, we took a brief look inside the archives themselves - at the compact shelving, card catalog, and digitization setup. They were curious about how things were organized, how we find images, and how often things are lost or misplaced. They wanted to know about the oldest negatives and duplicates. They asked so many excellent and engaging questions! Curiosity brought me to this profession, and it was amazing to see how curious they were about so many aspect of this collection and the work involved in caring for it. My goal was to open their eyes to this fairly niche intersection of photography, archives, and museums if it was not previously on their radar, and to make it relevant to their interests. Given their excited chatter, and the fact that they wanted to linger even after it was time to go walk through the galleries, I hope that I was successful in those goals. This might have been my first outreach program for this type of group, but it certainly won’t be my last, because it was wonderful.

The two most recent sessions of MASS Action covered exhibitions and collections, and the ways in which museums can reconceive authority and ownership to create inclusion. While I don’t currently work in these roles, theses are the issues I am most familiar with and am most likely to be facing in the future. As such, I was eager to gain additional perspectives from peers here at the museum.

Chapter 6 in the toolkit is titled ‘Sharing Authority: Exhibition Case Studies,’ and it covers two exhibitions developed by the Oakland Museum of California. Somewhat different in formatting than the previous chapters, this reading focused specifically on Pacific Worlds and Oakland I want you to know… as a way of discussing broader topics about working with individuals outside museums. Helpfully, definitions were provided upfront about the spectrum of ways in which folks can work together:

Contribution: Visitors and community members “contribute” by advising, loaning something, writing a response, attending a single meeting/convening or answering interview questions. The internal team conceives of and drives the vision and goals for the project. Community voice may or may not be incorporated.

Collaboration: Community members and museum staff work together as a team, to develop ideas and share some decision-making. Community voice is visible in key moments of the project/exhibition.

Co-creation: Community members or artists are part of the key decision making. This could be creative direction, designing elements for the project/exhibition, creating an artwork, adding interpretation, producing a media experience, or designing a whole section—determining the “how” an exhibit experience is implemented. Co-creators play a role throughout the whole project/exhibition. Community voice is a key piece of the narrative and is visible throughout the whole project/exhibition (Lashaw & Orantes, 2017, pp. 106-107).

Each exhibition description included the ways in which aspects of the project demonstrated contribution, collaboration, and co-creation, and it highlighted both successes and ways in which there was room for improvement. I appreciated how much detail was provided about the steps that were taken to include the communities being represented - from forming project task forces to commissioning work. It’s much more clear the ramifications of this work when broader concepts are backed with concrete examples. The feedback gathered from the contributing communities also provided useful ways to evaluate the work, and it demonstrated the need for constant improvement. I found it encouraging to see how other institutions are working through this, learning as they go, and are embracing it in spite of the traditional model of curator and museum professional as expert. Examples offer us guidance and can help to show the field as a whole that there are alternatives.

Our session to cover this chapter began with a partner exercise, where we were working together to draw our ideal potluck. The facilitators requested we use methodology inspired by Pair Programming, wherein one individual verbally describes and the other expresses that via keyboard - or in this case marker and paper - execution. It was a challenging and interesting exercise for many reasons, and it was interesting to see how fluidly and comfortably my partner and I (seemed) to alternate between roles. I wonder if the stakes were higher if this might be more of a struggle to find balance between co-creation.

We then worked in groups to reflect on our networks, and how we might categorize them: contribution, collaboration, co-creation. Our group ended up interpreting the prompt to mean relationships we had within the museum. I ended up realizing how hard it was to determine the departments and staff we aligned with most closely in our department, as we are fielding requests across the institution on a daily basis. In the end, I settled on Publications, all curatorial departments, and Information Services as the most closely affiliated. I also recognized that some of the conflicts, misunderstandings, and misaligned expectations may result from the fact that we aren’t as intentional as we could be about how we define our roles and relationship. Many of the challenges we face result, in part, from an unclear and shifting power dynamic.

The stated goal of the session was to see both the small and big ways in which we can individually and collectively share authority in our work, and see ways in which new collaborations might unlock potential. I had never stopped to consider how much power influences day-to-day work with those outside our department, which makes it all the more clear that we need to be conscious and intentional with our relationships here and beyond the museum. In order to share authority, we need to understand the ways in which we are already exercising it.

Chapter 7 in the toolkit is titled ‘Collections: How We Hold the Stuff We Hold in Trust,’ and it covers the ways in which museums are founded in imperialist, colonialist, and racist collecting practices. After all, much of what encyclopedic museums “own” was likely stolen from those who originally created the items. This has happened in all the regions which western civilization has “conquered” - from the Americas to Africa and Asia. While collecting institutions today infrequently acknowledge this fact, it is important to note that silence makes LAMs complicit in these actions. Facing this reality, however difficult and open-ended it may be, would be one important step to reconciling the problematic history of our collections.

The chapter provided helpful ways of using collections data - when, where, how, and why these materials came to be at the museum - to visualize broader historical events. Some of these tools to conduct a power audit include Power Map, DataMaps, and census records. This helps to provide context in which we can place these items, and it helps show that there is a meta-story about acquisition behind those more sanitized stories we tell about the objects. This is provenance.

The reading also provided a definition of consent, based of the work RAINN has done: consent is grounded in communication, and it always needs to happen. What does this mean for museums? We must reach out to the communities represented in our collections, and we need to create dialogue to understand how they would change things. The chapter notes several times that communities should not be expected to be monolithic in their opinions, and that this is another challenge with which museums will need to grapple.

Components of collections management, care, and display that were addressed in the reading include ideas about access (who gets to see objects and why?) care and preservation, and acquisition and representation. Making sure that cultures are not being appropriated via interpretation, that the intent of the object is reflected in how it is accessed and displayed, and that communities can repatriate what is rightfully theirs are crucial aspects of this work. The chapter underscored the need for thoughtfulness when approaching any of these activities, and to giving voice to suppressed histories. As with the previous session, shared authority is an important component of all of this. As a field of professionals, we need to learn to ask more questions, listen to the responses, put into practice solutions which work for all parties, and accept feedback - both good and bad.

The session covering this chapter started with a partner exercise where we discussed collecting in our personal lives: what we previously collect, what we collect now, and what our family histories are with collecting. We struggled with what a “true” collection is, and what the overlap is between these items and more utilitarian objects. We also uncovered how our histories connect collecting with capitalistic and consumerist tendencies. Thinking about how this relates to collections in museums, there are definite ties in untangling what an object was intended for vs. how it is displayed and interpreted and the insatiable drive for most museums to acquire additional collections.

We then formed groups to discuss questions which came up as we were reading the chapter. As always, it was refreshing to gain a variety of perspectives, which were informed in part by our diverse roles in the museum. I discussed the lack of transparency about the work of bringing our institutional history to light - how often do staff research murky provenance, how and when is that information published, when will this information be reflected in interpretive text in the galleries? I want to see a task force, or perhaps a forum where this work can be discussed openly and honestly.

Our group also talked about how pride in the founding donors (primarily white, wealthy men) and their donated collections (which often have problematic histories) are still a prominent talking point when it comes to institutional history. Priorities and new acquisitions were topics also included in the discussion. In order to do the work of connecting with communities to be more inclusive in collections practices, it needs to be a priority and resources needed to be reallocated as such. Acquisitions play an important role in this, as they monopolize funding and staff time which might be better used elsewhere. This is especially true when it comes to providing access to materials which are rarely if ever put on display, and for which there is no real infrastructure in place to facilitate in-person access.

One question posed by another group was if the notion of collecting museums even has a place in today’s world. If nothing else, our work should become much more self-aware, and we should share authority and power. We need to more publicly acknowledge what we are as institutions, and the practices that have been in play, so that we can move forward in being more representative of and for all communities.

I recently met with Julie Wroblewski, the senior archivist at the Chicago History Museum (CHM), to discuss the state of the archives program at the museum and future goals for its development. I worked at CHM several years ago, but sadly our time at the institution did not overlap. A colleague, and former archivist from CHM, introduced Julie and I recently, and my current enrollment in the Archives & Manuscripts course in my MLIS program seemed like a perfect opportunity to reconnect and put into context what I am learning.

Julie is a certified archivist with an MLIS from Dominican University. She also recently completed an MA in Digital Humanities from Loyola University, and received her digital archives specialist certification from the Society of American Archivists. Previous work experience includes the role of Archivist and Special Collections Librarian at Benedectine University, Project Archivist at Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, and Project Archivist at Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society. Her experience makes her well qualified for her current position, especially given the changes the collections unit is undergoing.

The museum is a stand-alone institution, and there is both a library and an archives within it. Hierarchically, the 3D museum collections, archival collections, and library are all situated under the collections unit, so the staff work closely with one another. The archives program at CHM is extensive - a fact I did not fully grasp when I worked there. The archival collecting scope aligns with the overall policy for the museum. The areas include: living, working, and governing the metropolitan area (including the broader suburbs around Chicago), the built environment, and individuals and ideas (Chicago History Museum, Collecting scope, 2017). Each of these areas is further broken down into topics, all of which are represented in the archives. Examples of these subjects include neighborhoods, class, leisure, business, labor, electoral politics, citizen action movements, and urban planning (Chicago History Museum, Collecting scope, 2017). Needless to say, there are a broad range of ideas represented in the collections, but they are all generally geographically focused in the Chicagoland area.

Given the wide range of topics covered in the archives, its user base is wide and varied. Requests are primarily fielded through the research center, though she mentioned she assists with queries which prove to be especially challenging. When I worked at CHM, I would walk through the research center on a daily basis, and I was always amazed by how consistently busy it was, and by the range of individuals visiting and materials they were using. Indeed, they information needs of users include genealogical research, architectural drawing requests from homeowners, primary subject material for Chicago History Fair project for students, and both broad and specific subjects in the archival collections driving the development of new work by authors, filmmakers, and academics. The research center was recently able to eliminate the fee to visit and use the archival and library collections, so now even more of the city can use the institution’s resources. Requests from those outside the city is also welcomed through the use of local freelance researchers.

The architectural drawings and records highlights the metropolitan area’s scope and variety of buildings. It includes both famous and lesser-known architects and architectural firms, and collecting efforts have prioritized the acquisition of entire archives of the creators (Chicago History Museum, Architectural drawings and records, 2017). The collection is comprised of architectural drawings, documents, photographs, and some 3D material which is managed separately. The Holabird & Roche/Holabird & Root architectural drawings and records, 1885–1980 and Harry Weese Associates architectural drawings and records, 1952–78 are two prominent collections within architectural drawings and records (Chicago History Museum, Architectural drawings and records, 2017). Much of the material in these collections can be challenging to work with, given the scale and relative fragility of many drawings and blueprints. Julie indicated that a good portion of these materials are stored off-site, and that much work needs to be done to improve the discovery of these holdings.

Screenshot of a sample archival document from the architectural drawings and records collection

The prints and photographs collecting area is that which I am most familiar, as much of the work I did in the photography department at CHM was digitizing negatives and prints for licensing requests. There is an incredible volume of content at “1.5 million images and more than 4 million feet of moving images” (Chicago History Museum, Prints and photographs, 2017). In addition to the sheer number of items, a wide range of media are represented: “prints, including etchings, engravings, and lithographs; photographs, including cabinet cards, cartes de visite, cased images, stereocards, paper prints, and negatives; broadsides; posters; postcards; greeting cards; and moving image film and video” (Chicago History Museum, Prints and photographs, 2017). My favorite collections I had the opportunity to handle and digitize were the Hedrich-Blessing architectural photographs and the morgue from the Chicago Daily News. The majority of these materials are stored at the museum.

Screenshot of a sample photograph from the prints and photographs collection

I am the least familiar with the archives and manuscript collection, so fortunately this is one of the storage areas we toured. There are over 20,000 linear feet of materials, and this is the one collecting area which does include content related to broader American history, especially as it pertains to the country’s early history. Archives and manuscripts include “unpublished materials including correspondence, diaries, business and financial records, meeting minutes and agendas, membership lists, research notes, scrapbooks, scripts, sermons, and speeches” (Chicago History Museum, Archives and manuscripts, 2017). Collections which see a lot of use are the Red Squad files - which have challenging access restrictions - and the Chicago Division of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters records, 1925–69 (Chicago History Museum, Archives and manuscripts, 2017). A large storage space is located in the museum to house some of these materials, but given square footage limitations and the need for more efficient shelving, some collections are stored off-site.

Screenshot of a sample archival manuscript from the archives and manuscript collection

Julie showed me a portion of the storage spaces in the museum, which are not open to the public. We walked past the cool and cold storage - used primarily for still and motion film and color prints. Our next stop was the primary archives and manuscript room. The spaces has several computer stations and large working spaces for processing. Additionally, there is a clearly defined area dedicated to largely unprocessed collections.

Storage space at CHM

More storage

Efficiency and backlogs were a topic that came up repeatedly throughout our conversation. I knew that the museum historically struggled with a substantial backlog, and Julie indicated that the archival collections were not immune to the problem. Fortunately, she has been making substantial progress to reduce unprocessed collections. She employs a variety of strategies to this end, with More Product, Less Process - or MPLP - featuring prominently in the success. Reflecting on previous finding aids, there had historically been a tendency to approach description from a historian’s rather than archivist’s perspective. Rather than focusing on providing a few useful access points, collections were exhaustively described.

Julie also uses processing plans to help go about work strategically. These plans include timelines to provide benchmarks for work, and she uses spreadsheets to document the work she (and volunteers and interns) do while processing collections. She has also taken a note from agile development strategies used by software developers, and she will often organize work into two week chunks. This helps break down complicated and seemingly daunting tasks into more manageable portions, and it helps keep the processing plan on track. Collectively, all these efforts have resulted in the archives backlog shrinking, all while she continues to take in new collections and faces a staffing shortage.

Capacity is an issue, especially given the fact that Julie is the only archivist on staff at the moment. The consequences of this reality are reflected in two ways in regards to growth of the collection: the nature of acquisitions and the material types currently permitted. Currently (and historically) donations have accounted for roughly 80-90% of new acquisitions in the archives. Staffing is the limiting factor in the solicitation of archival collections, especially since it often takes a substantial amount of time and effort to build relationships, and these types of acquisitions can take years before they are completed. Julie mentioned that some exhibitions have helped to kickstart these relationships, especially with communities who were unaware of CHM and who are underrepresented in the collections. Gaps she would like to address include materials created by and that are about the south and west sides of Chicago, as well as communities of color and the Muslim community in the city. Archivists at CHM will likely need to actively solicit materials to more fully round out the archives.

Potential donors can facilitate the process through the online form

Additionally, the museum does not accept born digital content as is outlined in the collecting scope and policy. Julie recognizes that this is problematic, as the majority of archival material being created today is likely digital. As such, there is a chronological gap that has the potential to grow, with material from the 2000s and on simply not being present in the holdings. Limitations in IT, especially as it pertains to infrastructure and the development of a digital preservation plan, are the primary source of this issue. In order to take this on, it will be necessary to have robust staffing and resources to support the substantial amount of work necessary to support born digital material. Julie is actively working on remedying these current limitations, and she hopes that they will begin collecting this type of material in the next few years.

Related to the current technological barriers at CHM, Julie stressed the necessity of emerging archivists to embrace new developments. When I inquired about specific tools or processes, she reflected on the fact that technology changes quickly and that above becoming an expert in one specific application, students should seek to be well-rounded. Competency should be reflected in gaining a range of experiences in order to learn how to use the next new thing, and to develop a foundation and comfort with using technology. She also reassured me that the technical aspects of archival work are not as complicated as they may seem, and that newcomers like me need to approach finding aid encoding and digital preservation with patience and humility.

One especially interesting idea Julie brought up repeatedly, and perhaps many of us do not fully consider when going into this field, is the necessity of relationships. She indicated a variety of ways in which she is actively strengthening ties within the institution - from working with curators to strategize collections building activities to the collaboration with the library and research center to learn what collections are being requested most frequently. Rather than acting as a silo, she understands the need and value in seeking out the experience and knowledge of other staff, and using it to strengthen the archives. This has resulted in the development of a series of brown bag meetings for staff, where Julie presents interesting new acquisitions to raise internal awareness of the collections.

The research center is an important ally for archival activities at CHM, especially because most external research requests are filtered through this department

Externally, she has been forging connections between current events and archival collections through programs and events, which often take place off-site. This helps acquaint communities, neighborhoods, and organizations with CHM and its archives, and it demonstrates the relevancy of the collections. Julie has developed a strong intern program, which is helping to train the next generation of archivists. As she is going about her work on a day-to-day basis, she keeps a list of candidate processing projects for emerging professionals. These real-world projects feature concrete aims, realistic deadlines, and the types of challenges we will face as archivists. Finally, she maintains close ties with other professionals in the field, especially those with similar collecting scopes. They work together to determine where materials might be a best fit, and they can serve users better by understanding where to refer individuals to with specific requests.

References:

Chicago History Museum. (2017). Architectural drawings and records. Retrieved from

Last week, I attended a 3-day workshop in identifying photographic prints at the Chicago History Museum. Developed by the Image Permanence Institute, this was an intensive and incredibly helpful opportunity. Two staff from IPI led the sessions - Jae and Alice - and each day alternated between lectures and hands-on activities. After each lecture, we were able to work with the teaching collection, walking through the methodology we were taught to properly identify the images. This really helped to reinforce the ideas presented, especially by working with a partner to talk through what we were seeing.

Our first day was dedicated to an overview of the development and challenges in creating photographic images. The framework for the rest of the workshop was also established via an introduction to a visual identification guide. This checklist helps establish a methodology to looking with the aim of identification, by inspecting: image content, primary support, image color and tone, image deterioration, surface sheen, image structure (continuous tone or patterned), and layer structure. These visual cues align with the content of Graphics Atlas, an online resource provided by IPI. This way of walking through prints, starting with overall observations and gradually working towards magnification, proved to be very helpful throughout the sessions. They also discussed the earliest processes from the 19th century. We covered photographs on rigid supports - Daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, and tintypes - in addition to silver based printed-out prints on paper - salted paper, albumen, collodion, and gelatin prints.

19th century processes

The next day was spent reviewing non-silver based printed-out prints on paper - carbon, cyanotype, and platinum prints. The rest of the session was spent moving forward into the 20th century, focusing primarily on the most common black and white print form of the century - the silver gelatin developed-out print. After learning about this highly variable print type, Jae and Alice introduced us to color photographic prints - autochrome, carbro, dye imbibition, chromogenic, silver dye bleach, and diffusion transfer prints. We rounded out the day by reviewing the non-photographic counterpart to all the processes we had learned up to this point - photomechanical prints. These included Woodburytypes, photogravures, rotogravures, collotypes, letterpress halftone prints, and offset lithography prints.

Comparing bronzing with an overexposed POP print with silver mirroring on a degrading DOP print.

20th century process: silver gelatin DOP

The last day moved us into the 21st century and digital printing technologies - inkjet, electrophotography, and dye diffusion thermal transfer prints. We put all our knew knowledge to work by working through the identification of ten prints, which ranged from the earliest to the most contemporary processes. It could have been overwhelming, but knowing the steps helped guide the process. And it was just as helpful to incorrectly identify prints, as Jae and Alice then provided us with additional help on how to get to the right answer. My partner and I went through several packets of prints, and we felt fairly confident by the end! We also had the opportunity to look at some of the photographic prints in the collection at the Chicago History Museum. It was nice to ground everything we had learned with these samples - these are the types of prints we are likely to encounter in the future, and may have to identify without the assistance of our IPI experts.

Teaching collection test!

I went into the experience hoping to gain some greater understanding of print images, and I was floored by how much content we covered, and how effective the instruction and format of active learning were. I still have much to learn, but I am so grateful for the opportunity to get this crash-course in photographic (and photomechanical) print identification.

I was fortunate to recently visit the Gerber Hart Library and Archives here in Chicago, and the director Wil Brant led me on a tour. I am interested in archives with a strong community focus and in histories often underrepresented in typical repositories, and this is in part why I reached out to this library and archives. This institution reflects these ideas, and asserts its ability to be a “conduit for change” through its resources and programming (Gerber Hart, 2015). The library and archives believes “knowledge is the key to dispelling homophobia” (Gerber Hart, 2015).

Gerber Hart is a collecting institution “dedicated to meeting the information needs of its unique community in a safe atmosphere that promotes research, exploration, and discovery” (Gerber Hart, 2015). The holdings of the institution can be broken up into three broad categories: circulating library material, archival collections, and special collections. The focus of my tour were the roughly 150 archival collections, though we also discussed the 3D and material culture objects comprising the special collections. The collecting scope of the archival branch of the institution is the: “records, papers, and other realia of lesbian and gay life, focusing primarily in the Chicago metropolitan area and the Midwest” (Gerber Hart, 2015).

Main exhibition space and Gay is Good: Homophile Activism before Stonewall exhibit

I started getting a better sense for the archival collections after taking in the temporary exhibition Gay is Good: Homophile Activism before Stonewall in the gallery space down the hallway from the library and archives. Featured were documents, photographs, pamphlets, magazines, books, buttons, and a typewriter. My tour officially began in the reading room and circulating stacks, where Wil discussed the historical context of the institution. We then walked through the two closed-stack storage areas, which housed rare library materials as well as archival and special collections. The collections seemed well organized, and they were housed in archival boxes; there was an emphasis on stewardship. It was clear throughout the tour that archival principles of intellectual and physical control were a primary focus for the management of their collections. Gerber Hart moved into the space shortly after it was renovated, and they were able to make requests of the building owners - including the installation of separate HVAC units for each of their storage spaces. Included too are two processing areas, one of which is large enough to fit several large tables.

Public reading room and circulating library collection

Reading room with tables for researchers to look at archival collections, exhibition cases featuring archival and special collections, and circulating library collections

In its nearly 40 year history, the archives has acquired the majority of its collections through donations. It is a well-known institution given its status as the “Midwest’s largest LGBTQ circulating library” and its drive to develop relevant services and programming. As such, strong ties exist between the LGBTQ community and the library and archives, which results in consistent archival donations. Additionally, the library and archive maintains its own institutional archives, which consists in part of previous presidents’ records. Some acquisitions are solicited, especially instances where organizations may be dissolving, but this requires considerable time and effort.

The content of the archival collections varies, and it includes documents, posters, photographs, and audio-video materials. The institution does not yet have the capacity - from a staffing or infrastructure perspective - to begin collecting born digital material. There is a particular strength in records from individuals and organizations, while fewer visual archival items are represented. Wil explained that this can likely be attributed to the fear of homophobic retribution and retaliation from those processing photographic and film material, and to unaccepting family members destroying or hiding what materials may exist. In short, absences in the archival collection can be attributed to restrictive societal norms and laws previously on the books.

Closed stacks, archival collections storage

Mixed collections

This institution fills an important role as a repository of material of LGBTQ life in Chicago, the Midwest, and beyond. Wil helped me to understand that up until fairly recently, mainstream libraries and archives largely were not interested in acquiring material for or about this community. This is especially true with many public libraries. As such, Gerber Hart filled a gap, focusing specifically on circulating, archival, and special collections which were overlooked or rejected by other institutions.

More recently, with other repositories slowly starting to expand their scopes, and with the rise of information being made available on the internet, the focus of Gerber Hart’s users has shifted. Use of the circulating collections has decreased, and research requests for their archival and special collections has increased. As a result, more individuals outside of the LGBTQ community are using the materials, especially professionals developing book and film projects, college students doing research, and public school children working on Chicago Metro History Fair projects. The heart of the user base will likely remain in the community, especially as younger generations seek information about their shared history, but it is heartening to see interest spread and grow. I appreciate how inclusive the space is and how that is reflected in the wide range of users.

Some of the less common visual resources in the archival collections

It is incredible to me how much the library and archives are able to accomplish, especially given its size and resources. There are currently two staff - both work part-time, and only one position is permanent. Wil indicated that there are approximately 30 volunteers and interns contributing to the daily operations. Much of his time is dedicated to managing and coordinating the activities of those donating their time. Graduate students in MLIS programs have interned at Gerber Hart, and a comprehensive collection list has recently been created. This is an important resource for users to discover what is available, especially since it is accessible to researchers remotely via the website. There are currently a few finding aids available, and work is underway to create more. Digitization largely happens on an ad hoc basis, and larger projects with special funding utilize contracted services.

The library and archives is a stand-alone institution, it is not a part of any other library, archive, or museum. It does have a symbiotic relationship with Howard Brown Health, which has one of its satellite offices in the same building as Gerber Hart. Howard Brown Health is a health and social service nonprofit organization focused on the wellbeing of the LGBTQ community in Chicago (Howard Brown Health, n.d.). The nonprofit encourages the development and display of archival and special collection exhibitions in their waiting and program areas.

Additional exhibition space in the lobby of Howard Brown Health, Games We Play exhibit

I learned so much during my trip. Wil taking time out of his busy schedule was such a nice reminder how giving folks are in archives, libraries, and museums.

The museum has been continuing to meet to discuss specific chapters from the toolkit, after taking a break for a month for the summer. The most recent sessions have covered inclusive leadership and interpretation. Lighter attendance has allowed for more in-depth conversations, one-on-one discussions, and increased openness when talking collectively as a group. These sessions have also marked a shift away from general ideas about inclusion towards specific roles and work within museums. As such, the concepts feel more tangible, and they may help to fill the gap some (including myself!) felt previously when covering broader ideas.

The discussion about leadership overlapped nicely with course content from my SJSU Information Professions class, wherein we explored the differences and similarities between managers and leaders. Being a manager does not automatically make you a leader, nor do you have to be a manager in order to be a leader. There are certain traits necessary for true leadership, which may be innate or learned, and these are crucial in the context of inclusive workplaces. Some of the characteristics included in the toolkit include “being able to adapt, being authentic, having emotional intelligence, and developing good relationships with followers” (Taylor, 2017, p. 74).

Our first activity during the session revolved around these and other traits that make good and inclusive leaders: empathy, self-awareness, humility, good communication skills, among others. We were tasked with picking one of these characteristics and discussing with one of our peers our choice. It was challenging deciding which was most important to me, but I settled on self-awareness. Given my professional experience with a range of different supervisors and management figures, I have learned how important it is for those in leadership roles to see and understand their place, and how their actions (or inaction) have impact. We had a good conversation, which underscored how many of these characteristics overlap, and how it is important for leaders to embrace and foster as many of these traits as possible. While some individuals may have innate abilities, for many it will require ongoing development, work, and self-assessment.

The MASS Action toolkit provides a helpful definition of what inclusive leadership is, in the form of a quote from Lize Booysen: “inclusive leadership extends our thinking beyond assimilation strategies or organizational demography to empowerment and participation of all, by removing obstacles that cause exclusion or marginalization” (Taylor, 2017, p. 74). Our facilitators focused the rest of our session on authenticity as being central to inclusive leadership, and the characteristics of authentic leaders:

They understand their purpose

They have strong values about the right thing to do

They establish trusting relationship with others

They demonstrate self-discipline and act on their values

They are passionate about their personal mission (Taylor, 2017, p. 75)

Given the fact that many of those attending these sessions are not in management positions, and might not thus be deemed traditional leaders, we were tasked with considering what our values are and how that might inform us taking on less traditional leadership roles. Our prompt was to consider why we show up to work, on a fundamental level, and what motivates us to do our work.

I am no stranger to these questions, as I talk fairly often with peers at other institutions, friends, and family about what drives me to work in archives, libraries, and museums. At the core of it, education and discovery are key for me, and my experiences have been to this end: in digitizing primary source materials, creating metadata, working as part of a team on collection portals and asset management systems, and most recently tackling the physical and intellectual control issues with an inconsistently managed archival collection. My jobs within imaging and photography departments have played a role in providing access to the collections and activities that occur within LAM institutions. I believe folks everywhere should be able to find, access, and learn from the work our museum does, and I hope that my contributions help break down barriers (geographic, financial, physical, cultural, etc.).

It was interesting to hear from staff working in a variety of positions - from conservation to major gifts to curatorial to learning and public engagement. We all have different guiding principles and senses of self-purpose, but this institution brings us together. If we can be conscious of and tap into these values, it seems much more likely that our principles can help guide everyday decisions that will make the museum more inclusive.

The session on interpretation addressed how the museum connects and engages with audiences through our collections. Interpretation was helpfully defined in the toolkit as “a narrative and a method of communicating to and with visitors… [which] conveys an institutional voice” (Anderson, Rogers, Potter, Cook, Gardner, Murawski, Anila, Machida, 2017, p. 89). Given the tradition of didactic methods in museums, the Eurocentric-dominant perspectives of these institutions have been disseminated as the official cannon. Varying points of view have either been absent or silenced as a result. The toolkit dives into the challenges historic homes in particular face when more fully and inclusively covering the story of a place: “who built this home… were they free or enslaved… at whose expense did the home’s owner make their money” (Anderson et. al., 2017, p. 89)? We may be focused on art, but we still face some of these same questions and many others in regards to interpreting our collections.

Our first exercise during the session helped to highlight some of the ways in which our differing backgrounds inform the way in which we might individually interpret collections. We were each given a reproduction of a work of art from the museum, and we were asked to describe it our partner in under a minute. We then both looked at the image and discussed what was missing from, what was assumed about, and what was highlighted from the verbal description. We shared as a group the challenges of creating the narrative, especially around issues of identity - be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or culture.

We then shifted gears to work in larger groups, and we were tasked with thinking about one of two sets of questions: those that pertained to how we interpret our work internally and what stories we tell institutionally; and those that pertain to multivocal visitor experiences with art. I decided to work with a team on the latter idea, and we discussed ideas about collaborations and a more plural experience behind our collections.

Staff shared examples of engaging programs and exhibitions other cultural centers and museums have undertaken, including the Chicago Cultural Center’s Wired Fridays weekly house music dance party, and the Museo Casa de la Memoria in Medellin Colombia. Chicago Cultural Center’s program pulls from and embraces one of the important, yet often neglected, music scenes to emerge from the city. With it, the Cultural Center has provided opportunities to expose more in the community to this style, and to draw in community from different parts of the city. The Museo Casa de la Memoria dedicates a substantial portion of its exhibition spaces to the recorded stories of those who have experienced armed conflict. The museum functions as a space of organization rather than authority, and it embraces polyvocal interpretation through interviews and oral histories. As the toolkit discusses, this type of interpretation honors the lived experience and respects that expertise.

These projects are good models of collaborative and engaging work institutions can embrace. I could see our museum doing even more to this end - collaborating with local street artists to create a series of programs and tours, for example. As previously mentioned, the museum could do more to also address what is absent from our interpretation. The toolkit asserts that aside from or in addition to interpreting “presences” - actual physical, material things - we might “instead emphasize - or be self-consciously aware of - the ‘absences’ - the stories and artifacts of those whom traditional history has largely forgotten or those whom dominant cultural thinking (infused as it is with racism, sexism, classism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc.) has deemed unworthy” (Anderson et. al., 2017, p. 93). Making more conscious efforts in setting concrete quantitative goals to exhibit groups underrepresented at our museum may be a start. Interpreting artworks in the larger context of museum studies, including problematic and troubling provenance may be another.

At the end of this chapter in the toolkit, the authors provide a list of strategies for transforming interpretation, which includes:

Expanding research

Learning critical race theory

Finding who is missing

Exploring intersectionality

Creating polyvocality

Listening and making space

Recontextualizing

Asserting a position

Conducting culturally responsive evaluation

Mining the human

Embracing collaboration during interpretive planning from:

Expert advisors

Focus groups

Community conversations

Co-creation

Reconsidering and reimagining in-gallery interpretation through:

Design spaces

Labels

Audio and multimedia tours

Response stations

Social media (Anderson et. al., 2017, p. 99-101)

There is much our museum can and should do to be more inclusive in its interpretation. I feel that a good place to start would be embracing the notion that museums are not and cannot be neutral, and that we need to assert a position when it comes to important issues. The institution can make it clear that it is a welcoming, safe space in asserting its values, and reflecting those values in how it interprets its collections, designs exhibitions, and develops programs.

During my trip to Washington D.C. this spring, I attended the IS&T Archiving conference in conjunction with visiting two Smithsonian archives. A representative from our department had attended this event in the past, and it’s been on my radar for several years. It was a good opportunity to learn about the trajectory of cultural heritage imaging and archiving on a larger, international scale.

This conference led me to consider my career path and hopes for the future, especially as it pertains to information professions. I originally became interested in the field of cultural heritage imaging as a result of my background in photography. Internships in two museums during college opened my eyes to the world of archival and museum work, especially as it pertained to making historic materials accessible. Digitization has been the focus of my career so far, having worked in three different museums and libraries in this capacity. After taking over some archives duties in my current position, I’ve realized how much I enjoy this related, yet different side of making materials accessible. It’s become clear to me that digital capture is just one aspect of access, archival practice is necessary in order to make data findable, and to preserve this data. I was pleased that the IS&T Archiving conference covered the full gamut of my interests: from digitization to quality control, workflows, metadata, standards, and information management.

While much of the conference focused on the hows of doing the work, the end goal of access and preservation was evident in all the presentations. The keynote was a prime example of this focus on use: the Montreaux Jazz Festival Digital Project in Switzerland was conceived first as a means of preserving unique, culturally important audio recordings, and it evolved into an effort rich in dynamic programming. The collaborative project has resulted pop-up exhibits and experiences utilizing archival footage during the annual jazz festival. The project faces the challenge of complicated rights issues, but staff have found a creative solution in the form of a custom-built cafe for researchers, students, and enthusiasts to interact with the collection.

A presentation by staff at the U.S. Library of Congress was another excellent instance of technology serving end users in making archival material accessible. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped within the Library of Congress has been digitizing its Braille music collection for preservation, given the often fragile and rare nature of the material, to maximize space on circulating shelves, and to better serve patrons. Given the fact that this branch serves citizens across the country, digital access has become the preferred method of disseminating music scores. The presenters reviewed their research in the various hardware and software used to effectively capture and output files which accurately capture the original. There is still much that could be improved in the existing technology, library staff made it clear that the challenges in digitization are worth it given the educational value they provide for the community.

The project manager of the Robert F. Smith Fund at the National Museum of African American History and Culture discussed the incredible collaboration between cultural heritage institution and community via their archival projects. Their community curation, professional curation, professional development, and Explore Your Family History Center all connect individuals with history. Staff have organized community digitization projects, which allows folks to learn about best practices for storing materials and digitally archive their ephemera and family photographs. Through professional curation and fellowship and internship opportunities, agency over representation and narratives can be retained within the community. And the Family History Center allows for information professionals to guide genealogical research. The presenter relayed stories about the unexpected social interaction that happens in this space, as long-lost family members have connected as a result of their findings. The work being done as a result of the Robert F. Smith Fund is a prime example of the multitude of ways in which cultural heritage institutions can create value for their patrons and community.

Doretha Williams from the National Museum of African American History and Culture

There were several sessions that focused on 3D capture of historic objects and sites, and the value of documenting our changing world. This is one emerging side of cultural heritage digitization which shows incredible promise in capturing our collective, global cultural patrimony. Historic sites at risk due to political or economic instability, disaster and climate change can now be captured with a high degree of detail and accuracy. While these captures are no replacement for the originals, their use and distribution can help foster a sense of urgency to preserve these sites and it can help individuals across the world learn in a tactile way about these histories. It was heartening to hear a call for a review of file formats, metadata schema, digital preservation and an overall strategy for dealing with 3D capture. There aren’t currently any standards, so this is a crucial concern. After all, long-term access of this data will only be assured if information professionals turn their attention to effectively archiving these materials.

One presentation out of Finland, and another out of South Korea also pointed to searchability of digitized archival material as key as it pertains to access. The Digitalia Research Center has been working to create systems which will accurately and efficiently perform OCR on a variety of typeset and handwritten materials, in a variety of languages. In addition, their solutions are able to analyze the resulting data to determine keywords for processed materials. The research done in the audio archives of the National Archives of Korea reveals the value of speech recognition technology. Though manual intervention is often necessary with automated processes like this one, deep learning is being implemented on an experimental basis in an attempt to improve efficiency and accuracy. Both these automation projects underscore the value of cost-effective technologies that will provide improved access via search, and which will keep up with the incredible volume of archival materials we create.

Anssi Jääskeläinen from the South-Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences, Digitalia Research Center

A poster about the Echoes project, based out of the Netherlands, caught my interest as it pertains to cooperation and collaboration across institutions and countries. This effort is attempting to link data, and thus archival collections, through one unified system. Based on the Europeana portal of digital collections that pulls together cultural heritage material from scores of institutions across the continent, this system goes one step further to connecting collections across the globe. Through careful crosswalking of metadata, museums, archives, and libraries can add to a growing web of information. The data is transformed to LOD/RDF triples, and users can query or use maps as search interfaces (Netiv and Hasselo, 2018). Projects like this one point to the larger trend of linked data, and the necessity of international collaboration. It is easy to become overwhelmed by options when searching for or browsing information as a result of the sheer number of search engines and information portals. Consolidation of data, and enrichment from making connections is key to help cut down on information overload.

I left the conference considering how we might improve our processes and standards within the digitization program at our museum. This has yielded helpful conversations about progress and improvements, that should help to ensure we are producing accurate documentation of our collections for archival purposes. Beyond these implications, I keep reflecting on the presentations in relation to the value of archives. The physical materials and their digital surrogates have value when they are accessed. Access depends on preservation, searchability, and connections. This is where archivists come into play - they help to transform sheets of paper and digital files. Given the scope of impact within each of these projects presented during the conference, it’s crystallized in my mind the role information professionals play in connecting individuals, communities, and societies to unique, historical content.

Last month, I traveled to Washington D.C. for the IS&T Archiving conference. I headed out a few days early in order to meet with a couple of archivists at the Smithsonian. My first stop was the Smithsonian Institutional Archives, and my second stop was the National Anthropological Archives.

I met with the photography archivist, Marguerite Roby, at the Institutional Archives, and it was incredibly helpful meeting with someone managing collections so similar to those I’m overseeing at the Art Institute of Chicago. We discussed issues we’re currently facing, and she provided suggestions based on similar challenges she’s encountered. She stressed finding an approach and sticking to it, for consistency it’s not about the perfect solution, rather one that will work in most situations and will produce repeatable results. She also encouraged our department to work collaboratively with other departments to learn more about our materials, and to foster institutional ownership of the collections.

She also provided the history of the Institutional Archives, whose complicated past mirrors our story. With institutional archives, especially photographic material, it seems as though the distinction between “working” and “archival” material is often hard to make. At AIC, this is reflected in the fact that the Imaging department, that which is currently making new documentation for the museum, is still tasked with managing all historical photographic documentation. At Smithsonian, progress has been made in the form of one centralized repository for all institutional documentation, but there is much work to be done to sort and catalog a legacy of inconsistent management. It was eye-opening hearing her thoughts about the unique challenges embedded within photographic institutional archives, which I’ve felt intuitively, but have never been able to pinpoint exactly.

Additionally, we talked shop about image records, metadata, information management systems and workflow, storage, and digitization. While Marguerite is dealing with a scale of material that far surpasses our collections, learning about the ways in which our day-to-day work is similar and differs gave me ideas on what we can improve. It confirmed areas where we’re on the right track, and areas that need more attention. We also toured the on-site storage in the Smithsonian Institutional Archives building in D.C. The majority of photographic material is located elsewhere, but I was grateful for the opportunity to take a look at some of their archival material. One item in particular, the custom slide cabinet and vertical viewing station, caught my eye.

It was wonderful discussing archives, and institutional archives in particular, with a professional with so much experience and knowledge.

Storage in the Institutional Archives office building

Slide storage and viewing cabinet

Custom housing for glass plate negatives

Material to-be-sorted from a departing Smithsonian staff member

The next day, I met with photograph archivist Gina Rappaport, who manages the National Anthropological Archives. Her office and storage are located in one of the off-site facilities outside Washington D.C. - one of the warehouse spaces I’ve long wanted to visit.

She told me about the Archives’ long history and how ownership and management as shifted over the decades. Paralleling the Institutional Archives, and our own, it’s interesting to learn how common a reality this is for archives - and it’s a reality which has a huge impact on archivists’ work. Uneven oversight results in piecing together puzzles and backtracking to revise work previously done. This is further complicated with Gina’s material, since there are so many different creators. Institutional archives can be considered mainly in terms of the institution itself as creator and subject, but more traditional collections like the National Anthropological Archives have unique creators and subjects.

We discussed physical and intellectual organization of the archives. She helped answer some of my questions about the utility of creating finding aids for our collection, and how to go about resolving physical reorganization which has resulted in a loss of information about material. These management issues made it clear how important it is to have trained archivists overseeing materials like these. While interpretation of collections is good, it can’t happen without measures in place which allow for the safe storage, retrieval, and care of these materials.

She led me on a tour of some of the photographic archives storage space in the building, as well as some of the general museum collections storage, primarily for the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. The building has been custom designed to maximize storage space, with 435,000 square feet dedicated to the collections. This includes rows upon rows of stationary and compact shelving units filled with historic negatives and prints. The photographic archives are beautifully housed, and Gina discussed their good fortune of having volunteers dedicated to making custom housing for unique or unstable materials. This includes floating mylar supports so researchers can look at original negatives without having to touch them. They also have extensive cold and frozen storage both on- and off-site, and a comprehensive digitization program.

These more traditional archives gave me a better sense of context about archives on the whole, and the ways in which our institutional archives fit in the larger field.

One small section of photographic archives storage for the National Anthropological Archives

I’m incredibly thankful for the chance to spend so much time talking to these archivists, and for the opportunity to tour their facilities and see their collections. The field of cultural heritage is perpetually overworked and understaffed, so it’s a testament to the generosity of staff like Marguerite and Gina to take time out to meet with me. I learned so much from both of these visits, and I’ve made some valuable professional connections. I hope that I’ll be able to pay it forward in the future, especially once I have more formal archival training under my belt.

The last scheduled session to meet to discuss MASS Action covered the second half of chapter three of the toolkit, Organizational Culture and Change: Making the Case for Inclusion. The reading covered the various ways in which individuals, teams, and organizations can approach change, and how change is inherently difficult. The intent of the content was to outline different frameworks that can be used to guide the work. I connected with the steps Thomas Cummings and Christopher Worley (2009) developed through their consultancy work:

Motivating change

Creating a vision

Developing political support

Managing the transition

Sustaining momentum

The necessity of a change leader is explicit in each of these steps. Though previous discussions in MASS Action meetings have made it clear staff feel that our current hierarchy is a detriment to the organization, leadership is necessary in order to effect change. This may be a tricky balancing act, but these meetings have demonstrated that is possible for ownership of processes to be shared, and for leaders to facilitate rather than dictate. I have found this to be a heartening aspect of this program, and it encourages me to see the different ways leaders act in this setting. I hope this can be translated out into the broader work of the institution as a whole.

The concept of divergence and convergence were also covered in the reading, especially as it pertained to communication as dialogue. We ended up discussing ideas related to this during the meeting, as participation in MASS Action at our museum is voluntary, and so it has become self-selecting. This is likely beneficial in that it seems there is a level of comfort in discussing challenging ideas, we have hopefully been building trust over the last few months. By the same token, more involvement is needed across the museum in order for change to happen across all levels of the institution.

It has been mentioned on several occasions, and I have also felt, that there is a disconnect between these meetings and the rest of our work within our departments and teams. Whether it is due to apprehension, fatigue/burnout, skepticism, or a lack of time or interest - including notions of “this doesn’t affect me so why should I care?” - there are a lot of staff not coming to the meetings. This is especially the case among white men, who make up a considerable portion of our museum staff, especially in managerial capacities. The challenge I keep thinking about is how we go about bringing more folks into the conversation, and having productive conversations about diversity and inclusion. After all, this will only work if there is buy-in from enough people to bring about and make stick meaningful change. And how do we foster convergence if a broader cross-section of the museum is represented at the meetings, if what is being proposed challenges the status quo?

Another framework presented in the reading was developed by Mark Kaplan and Mason Donovan (2013), and it presents practical phases that I think we could embrace moving forward:

Research

Resource allocation

Implementation and integration

Measurement and recalibration

The first two phases in particular stuck out to me, as our meetings have repeatedly returned to questions of how we can actually go about doing the work to bring change and bring about greater inclusion to the museum. The idea of getting some basic data about staffing, especially as it relates to gender, race, and pay grades, is absolutely necessary - this is research that must be done. We need to know what our weaknesses are and gauge the effect of future changes put into place, so baseline information is key. Additionally, administration needs to understand and commit to providing financial, human, and time resources. This will not be a one-off project, but it will take ongoing work. And when staff are already feeling burdened with work and too few resources, it will be challenging to get wholesale buy-in unless compromises are made elsewhere.

The toolkit also provided suggestions on ways of ensuring inclusion through means of affinity networks, a dedicated diversity and inclusion department separate from human resources, and diversity council and task forces. It is good that the museum is looking to bring on consultants to help guide us, but we also need dedicated teams. This will help ensure the work happens, even after consultants leave, it may help to provide room for more folks at the table, and it will show commitment to change. The logistics of any of these teams, groups, or departments will pose their own challenges, but it is likely that the net gain will be worth it.

During the meeting itself, we were asked to think ahead and consider what we want the museum to be. We were tasked as working in pairs to create a headline 50 years from now that reflected success in the museum’s transformation as it relates to diversity, equity, access and inclusion. My partner and I focused on collections, and equity between solo exhibitions for female and male artists. We also thought about bringing art to the people, rather than relying on them to come to us, since there are many barriers to entry. We dreamed of a sustained partnership where collections are loaned to public schools and libraries throughout the city. It was interesting to hear all the ideas staff came up with, and it was a nice opportunity to hope for a much different future.

We then broke into groups to discuss ways of actually achieving those headlines, in individual, group, and institution-wide actions. Our group determined that presenting about MASS Action to our departments, especially where attendance has been low, would be worth pursuing. We also discussed how groups might schedule opportunities to meet with staff from other departments to brainstorm ways of bringing about change, in ways relevant to our disparate work. On a larger scale, we discussed how the museum should begin rethinking the ways in which it divides its collections, and in so doing, makes implicit biases and norms known. Curatorial departments seem as though they are always in a state of flux, so it seems reasonable to consider to these divisions might be further altered to minimize making normal white Christian art and “othering” everything else.

The meeting ended in the team leaders compiling all the groups’ action ideas, and reading them to us. There were a wide range of ideas, some immediate with a low barrier point, and some tackling larger systemic issues. I took to heart the idea of setting time on a regular basis to go and connect with collections in the galleries, and experiencing interactions visitors have with each other and the material presented. I rarely break away from work to reflect on what this institution is, and I think it would be grounding and helpful to understand how others perceive our holdings and museum as a whole. Regular time spent in the galleries could also help inform how the museum interprets its collections. One important institutional-level change I would like to see, would be greater input and feedback from the community on interpretation. Having just a few individuals in charge of the selection and presentation of collections contributes to limited narratives about art and history. We need to make room for community curation - both from non-curatorial staff and from the public. I believe this would help considerably in making our museum a more inclusive space for all, and it would help deconstruct the grand narratives which often reign supreme in cultural heritage institutions.

Though there is not yet another meeting scheduled to continue the MASS Action readings, it seems guaranteed that this work will continue. We have yet more to read from the toolkit, and it has become apparent from the meetings that there is a portion of staff who want to see change. Meeting leaders have also been reporting on how they are translating the conversations we are having to administration, and future actions that may be taken as a result of the program and a general need for greater inclusiveness. There is forward momentum, hopefully meaningful change will come as a result.

The third session for MASS Action at the museum felt different than the previous two. It seems as though collectively, we are getting much more comfortable discussing difficult topics relating to inequality and white supremacy. There has been some variation in who has attended - there is a repeat session for those who have scheduling conflicts - and each session has resulted in different groupings of staff from across the museum. In spite of all this, it has become apparent that to some extent, those who are showing up feel comfortable confronting the realities we face at work.

We read the first half of chapter three of the toolkit, Organizational Culture and Change: Making the Case for Inclusion, in preparation for the session. Our previous readings dealt with broader issues, theory, and societal frameworks in which cultural heritage organizations exist. This particular section started to get into greater detail about what that means, practically speaking. The Levels of Systems theory pinpointed different hierarchical groupings to be considered for change: individual, team, organization, and marketplace (Taylor & Kegan, 2017, p. 50). Within each of these levels, the toolkit addressed general ways in which change can occur. Learning was highlighted as a key component to change at all levels, especially as it relates to unconscious bias that we all face (Taylor & Kegan, 2017, p. 54).

The first exercise of our session involved working individually to come up with a handful of words of phrases that we would use to describe the organizational culture of the museum. We then wrote these on post-it notes, and they were collected by the facilitators. They organized the sticky notes into general categories, clustering and grouping the terms.

Groups of around six to eight then discussed some prompts provided by the facilitators. These included questions about the barriers, challenges, and patterns of resistance that exist in our organizational culture that impact inclusion practices, ideas about individually supporting inclusion, and the general impact specific concepts or sections of the reading had. Our group discussed the challenges of the institution being so large and having such an extensive history. The size and reputation make change difficult, and when it does happen it often comes at a very slow pace. At the same time, there are great demands and limited resources to get our traditional work done, so prioritization is key if we want to work on change. This related back to the reading, which outlined diversity educators Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun’s theory of 13 aspects of culture based in white supremacy: perfectionism, sense of urgency, quantity over quality, and paternalism being just a few of these facets (Taylor & Kegan, 2017, p. 40).

We also discussed the need for buy-in from those in the institution with the power to make decisions, and the need for concrete steps that we can individually and collectively take to help create change. Given the range of departments represented in our group, this was framed both internally and externally. It seems there is an uneven pace of the awareness and action around notions of diversity and inclusion in the museum, with groups like the department of Learning and Public Engagement excelling and others lagging far behind. It is heartening to know that change at some levels is possible. It is essential that adoption of plans and policies take place at a much broader scope and with the weight of administration, given the power structure of the institution. There was also a consensus that there needs to be greater transparency within the decision-making process of the hierarchy, and that we need to approach work like this more democratically.

I appreciated the opportunity meeting those in my group, and hearing from them the work they are doing to acknowledge and correct white supremacy, and heteronormative and ableist ways of thinking. Their reflections made it clear to me that we all have our part to play, and that every individual’s work will be different.

The session ended with individuals sharing out to the group as a whole topics they discussed in the smaller groups. Finally, the facilitators shared some of the broad categories they found from our sticky notes relating to organizational culture. One of the largest groups was that which related to the extensive hierarchy within the museum - this had by far the most individual mentions. Other groupings related to ideas about perfectionism, whiteness, male dominance, conservative history, divided and siloed working groups, and general disorganization. On a more positive note, open mindedness, talent, and passion were also characteristics listed. It was interesting to note convergences in how we perceive the institution, and I would be curious to see similarities and differences in the public’s perception of the museum.

Given several comments participant made about the reading, and questions we had about putting some of these ideas into practice, the facilitators were able to share that some of the information from our sessions was bubbling up to the decision-makers within the institution. There is one additional session currently scheduled in order to review the last section of the toolkit. I sincerely hope the opportunities to meet, discuss, and plan for change that needs to occur, will continue to happen after next month’s session.

This was my first year attending the Midwest Archives Conference, and luckily, it was located here in Chicago. I knew it would be a smaller event than the American Institute for Conservation conference that I attended last spring, and I was pleasantly surprised by the content presented. In particular, there was a cohesiveness in the tours and sessions I attended on the first day, all of which related to diversity in archival practice. The day started off with a tour of two southside archival repositories: the Carter G. Woodson Regional branch of the Chicago Public Library (CPL) and the DuSable Museum of African American History, and it ended with conference sessions.

At Woodson, we toured the newly reopened facility and learned more about the history of this regional branch. This included a discussion of and glimpse at some of the materials in the Vivian G. Harsh Research Collection of Afro-American History and Literature. This collection is one of the largest and most comprehensive documenting black life in Chicago and the region as a whole (Chicago Public Library 2018). Part of the history of these materials is the strong support of the surrounding southside community itself: neighbors banned together to raise funds in order to build an expansion of the library to house the collection, and they fought against the relocation of the materials to the hub CPL location downtown Chicago. The Vivan G. Harsh society formed as a non-profit friends organization in 1994 to directly support the archival materials at Woodson (Vivian G. Harsh Society 2018). Our librarian guide recounted the variety of content in the collection, from newspaper clippings to funeral programs to yearbooks. She also spoke to the wide range of users of this material, including genealogists and students working on history fair projects. I enjoyed the chance both the take in the space, especially the beautiful art and revamped exhibit featuring the archival collections, and appreciated the opportunity to see the closed stacks and learn about this amazing collection from staff.

Our second stop was the DuSable Museum of African American History, which I visited several years ago in order to write a paper for one of my Museum Studies classes at Northwestern. Our visit started in the amazing entrance hall covered in Thomas Miller mosaics, where the museum’s archivist, Ms. Skyla Hearn, told us the story of the institution. The museum exists today because of the efforts of Dr. Margaret Taylor ­Burroughs. She was passionate about African American culture and history and worked tirelessly to create a place where the community’s story could be told. She and her second husband Charles developed the idea for a museum, and with the support of a large network, they transformed their plan into reality. The museum has grown substantially since it first opened its doors to the public in 1961, and it was through Dr. Burroughs’ strategic collecting and deep connections with the local community that has led the institution to its current position as an invaluable and beloved museum dedicated to telling important, often untold or overlooked stories (Feldman 1981).

Ms. Hearn then led us on a tour of their exhibition spaces, and we ended up spending the most time in the more recently developed exhibit Freedom, Resistance, and the Journey Toward Equality. There were a number of impactful archival pieces featured, including ephemera from America’s slave trade through posters and film footage from the civil rights movement. The exhibition is “dedicated to the thousands of unsung lives given in the name of freedom and equality,” and it tells important stories in a limited amount of space (DuSable Museum 2018). The archivist then spoke about upcoming exhibits and the joy of finding new content while organizing and cataloging the museum’s archival collections. We ended our tour in the newly completed reading room for the Hamilton Institute for Research and Civic Involvement. The museum has been working closely with Dr. Charles V. Hamilton, scholar, activist, and political scientist, on the creation of this addition to the museum (Hutcherson 2018). Dr. Hamilton’s papers (an ongoing acquisition), in addition to a wide range of additional archival and rare book collections can be viewed in the new reading room. It was exciting to hear about the substantial progress that has been made acquiring, cataloging, and making accessible collections relating to African American history. These are amazing resources, and they are in good hands.

Some of the collections on display in the exhibit Freedom, Resistance, and the Journey Toward Equality

The conference officially kicked off with the plenary session, which featured Natalie Moore, WBEZ Chicago Public Radio investigative reporter and author of The South Side: A Portrait of Chicago and American Segregation. Much of her work looks at entrenched segregation in Chicago, and her book is a deep-dive into the impacts of segregation on the housing market. While much of the content focuses on more contemporary events, looking at her and her family’s experience with property ownership, she does provide historical context for their story. Local archival repositories (Chicago History Museum, Newberry Library, Chicago Public Library, etc) were important resources for her in covering the histories of the Great Migration, Jim Crow, redlining, public housing, and white flight. Primary source materials helped her to gather data about the realities of inequity in neighborhoods and housing. She related how even materials like yearbooks could provide valuable insights: patterns of shifting neighborhood demographics could be traced in photographs of the student body over the course of a few years. It is exciting to see the ways in which archival materials can be used and interpreted, especially linking the past with current realities. I am grateful that there are individuals like Ms. Moore who are making the connections between past and present issues, and telling stories which will hopefully make the city and region as a whole more aware of the ongoing inequity in Chicago and beyond.

Finally, the general sessions at the conference began in earnest. I attended a panel program entitled “Beyond Institutional Boundaries: Community Archives and Representational Belonging,” in which five speakers addressed various institutions and programs that are embracing local communities. Each project reflected the notion of “representational belonging,” which is key to deferring the erasing of communities and instead provides them the agency to collect and tell their own stories (Caswell 2016). Presenters discussed Mukurtu Collections Management System and ArtHyve, in addition to the Chicago Area Archivists (CAA) Day of service at Pullman State Historic Site, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Preservation Outreach project at Stony Island Arts Bank, and the history of Shorefront Legacy Center.

The Pullman project was an interesting case study in the merger of historic sites with archival content and the surrounding community. The representative from CAA proposed that regional archival organizations can fulfill a unique role in how they serve their surrounding communities, as they are comprised of individuals not institutions. As such, some of the power struggles and challenges with agency and ownership may not arise. In this instance, CAA worked with the neighborhood to define common goals for the project and emphasized relationship building throughout the process. The end result was the cataloging of over 180 boxes of archival material relating to the historic site, which included box level inventories and condition assessments. Archivists from CAA assisted in organizing the event, and providing expertise, but it was the community of local volunteers in this southside neighborhood which owned and directed the work.

Slide from the CAA and Pullman collaboration

The ALA preservation outreach project also helped make common ground between conservation practitioners and another southside Chicago neighborhood via a local cultural center. The Stony Island Arts Bank is a “hybrid gallery, media archive, library and community center – and a home for Rebuild’s archives and collections,” Rebuild being the parent organization (Stony Islands Art Bank 2018). This site was chosen because its location in an area historically underrepresented and under-resourced in terms of archival care and management, and the ALA series is focused on engaging in partnership with these types of organizations. The day-long event started with presentations from ALA members on preservation best practices in regards to a wide range of archival material reflected in the collection, from books to photographs, sheet music, posters, and ephemera. The rest of the day was spent working with Arts Bank staff and community volunteers to rehouse portions of the collection. Access to these materials is a crucial aspect of the mission for the organization, so the goal of this partnership was addressing collections care to help ensure their longevity. The Dorchester Avenue photograph collection was one focal point for the effort. These found images from the neighborhood show snippets everyday black life in Chicago from the 1950s to the 1980s. Their rehousing in binders will allow easier access and will help to keep them organized and protected. The Ed Williams collection was also addressed, and it is through an ALA press release about these materials in particular that led to a newspaper article on the preservation outreach project. This write-up resulted in increased community donations and engagement with the cultural center. The event not only provided the Arts Bank with rehoused archival material, it also provided foundational preservation knowledge to attendees, and it helped further connect the organization with its neighborhood.

The Shorefront Legacy Center’s history is a demonstration of true community archiving in practice. The organization originated with the goal of showing the experiences of black life in the suburbs around Chicago, not just in the urban environment (Shorefront Legacy Center 2018). This community-created organization was developed in order to address a lack of representation in traditional archival spaces, and to reverse narratives of powerlessness that sometimes follow with black history and representation. The center instead focuses on empowerment and agency through collaboration with the community it represents. This is done in part through a partnership with the Black Metropolis Research Consortium. The relationship supports the center’s work through education on best practices and guidelines, as well as increased visibility and the subsequent increase in resources. One recent project the center has undertaken has been an outreach project with one of the Evanston YMCA branches. Community relations with this location were poor due to the lasting legacy of segregation: local African Americans were barred from joining or using this facility in the mid-twentieth century. Archival material in the form of meeting minutes were used to facilitate open forum discussions and the recording of oral histories. This helped the community to more openly discuss and collectively process its history, and it led to an exhibition at the Shorefront Legacy Center, as well as documentary books and films. At the same time, this project helped with YMCA to act to bridge the gap by acknowledging their history (renaming rooms) and welcoming the entire community (creating scholarships). The center strives to collect, provide access to, and foster development of products (exhibitions, art, documentaries) in order to reach more individuals and tell more stories. This nimble organization has accomplished a great deal, and embodies community-led archiving, in spite of limited resources.

Slide from the Shorefront Legacy Center presentation

I learned so much in one day, and the theme of diversity and representational belonging resonated with me. I have worked in traditional museum and library spaces, which have not always focused on or done an adequate job of collecting material from diverse communities or successfully partnering with them. I hope that this will change as time goes on, and institutions realize how valuable these relationships are. Additionally, I hope traditional repositories can take cues from community-organized repositories to learn what equitable collaborations look like. I also hope to be involved in or support in some way community archiving efforts at the National Public Housing Museum. This community has historically been incredibly effective at organizing and advocating, and I am sure that this grassroots-founded museum will do wonderful things.

The second meeting to discuss MASS Action was framed by the second chapter in the toolkit - Moving Toward Internal Transformation: Awareness, Acceptance, Action. The reading reviewed the necessity of careful, attentive listening. It also underscored acknowledging that there are deep-rooted issues that all institutions need to face. Our session guides reminded us of the fact that we all bring different experiences and insights to the table when it comes to these conversations.

We started the gathering practicing listening. While this seems like it would be a relatively simple exercise, it can actually be a struggle. It’s not just about hearing, it’s about being engaged and open and not simply waiting for your turn to talk. We talked in pairs about awareness in any context. I talked about my shift in thinking when it came to cultural heritage institutions, from places about things to places for people. In this, I reflected on MLIS coursework that focused on asset-based frameworks when dealing with different communities (Montiel-Overall, Nuñez,& Reyes-Escudero, 2015). In being truly inclusive and equitable to all staff and visitors, we need to focus on strengths as a method for finding common ground. Reflecting on researching Chicago Housing Authority public housing residents as an information community, the strength of peer-to-peer dissemination of information and grassroots advocacy are two such strengths.

Next, we spoke in small groups about three issues with which museums must come to grips: colonialism, white privilege, and racism. These are all historical legacies which are reflected in all aspects of cultural heritage institutions: from hiring practices to school group visits. Groups had the choice which of these topics to focus on, and conversation was guided by prompts: personal experience, emotions tied to the topic, improving and fostering conversations about the topic in the institution. Each topic included a quote to provide context. Colonialism focused on the acquisition of collections from other countries (former colonies) and the impact of these materials, their display, and framing by the museum on visitors, especially for those with heritage from the source culture. Racism focused on how some institutional systems are gone (Jim Crow, redlining) but the remnants still remain in the form of history and practice, including in museums. White privilege focused on white as the perceived norm for culture, and how even implicit demand for assimilation by people of color is not equity. Our group chose to focus on the third topic.

One quote from activist and scholar Peggy McIntosh from her article White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, resonated throughout the discussion:

“White privilege is like a weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks . . . ; an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious . . . I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage . . . Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow them to be more like us” (McIntosh, 1989).

The topic of privilege comes up fairly often in conversations, and I have experienced varied and emotional reactions in response. It often seems that blame and guilt come into play and white folks can become defensive and feel powerless as a result. For the sake of having meaningful, productive conversations, we need to broaden the conversation from immediate concerns of wealth and class to reflect on history. We need to be aware of how we have benefited from the system and how others have not. We also need to be conscious of how we go about attempting to eliminate this inherently broken system. Decisions should not be made on behalf of communities of color, communication and collaboration with all staff are key. This is the difference between intent and impact - it isn’t the thought that counts. At the same time, we have to keep in mind how much we all have to learn about one another. This is where listening comes in, and where the current monolithic voice frame is replaced with a more empathetic frame that allows for a variety of experience.

Each group reported on some high-level thoughts that came about as a result of their conversations. I was struck by how differently we all approached the same topics, which speaks to the need for all points of view. Our personal histories affect how we navigate issues like colonialism, racism, and white privilege, and we should use our unique stories to power change. We all make mistakes, but fear and hopelessness should not stand in the way of making progress. Hopefully these conversations will help our museum to start seeking out means - both small and big - by which we can dismantle the harmful systems on which the organization was founded.

Last year, a cross-departmental group of staff from the Art Institute of Chicago attended MASS Action, a national convening of cultural heritage institutions committed to supporting practices of equity and inclusion at their home institutions. The goals of this group are far-reaching and ambitious, but they are necessary. From MASS Action’s website:

“As the museum field begins to shape its identity in the 21st century, MASS Action poses the following questions for practitioners to consider: What is the role and responsibility of the museum in responding to issues affecting our communities locally and globally? How do the museum’s internal practices need to change in order to align with, and better inform, their public practice? How can the museum be used as a site for social action? Through a series of public convenings and the creation of a toolkit of resources, this project's intention is to share the strategies and frameworks needed to address these important topics.”

The first two institution-wide meeting to discuss the toolkit took place this month. MASS Action provided a framework for this discussion to get started, which is invaluable given the challenging nature of the content to be covered. We started by chatting with a neighbor, and posing the question - what does social action mean to you? There were lots of animated conversations taking place throughout the room, and my discussion partner and I talked about the necessity of connecting with people directly. Even though there are many means of interacting, face-to-face communication is necessary to forge strong ties, build momentum, and provide a reminder of the humanity of both peers and the public we’re serving.

A set of ground rules were then laid out by the organizers, to which we all agreed:

We are making an honest attempt to address the most pressing issues of equity within our museum. We are building a network of people that are (and have been) developing long-term solutions and effective strategies based on the immediate confrontation of our most pressing issues.

In developing these strategies and solution, we emphasize our own power, not our powerlessness.

We share the airtime. We listen to understand. We ask questions before assuming. The best way to understand the choices, actions or intentions of one another is by asking.

In order to create a space where everyone may speak freely, we recognize the importance of confidentiality. What is said here stays here, what is learned here leaves. We encourage you to ask before quoting, online or in-person, someone when they are sharing their thoughts in a space of trust.

We encourage people to engage with their whole selves, not just with one part of their identity.

We deeply value the time and energy participants are contributing to this project, and therefore want to create a safe, productive, healing space. Please ensure you maintain your health, energy and wellbeing throughout these discussions.

These guidelines helped set the tone for the work that we need to do. It is about sharing in a non-judgemental way, working together, and respecting where folks are coming from - basic ideas, but necessary to state in an increasingly hostile world.

We then broke into groups of about 10, to address two prompts: what is our truth, what is our role in the museum. I ended up talking with many peers I’d never met before, who represented a range of departments across the museum and central administration. We discussed in depth our identities and how certain “truths” (place in the family, state we grew up in, etc) inform how we function both in and outside of work. Additionally, we talked about how we exist in this institution, its relation to our identities, and the challenges we personally face. We also addressed the fractured nature of this museum, both in terms of physical space and in terms of work divisions. Given how large the institution is, many staff do not have opportunities to connect with each other.

I have always approached museums and archives from a collections-oriented perspective. I believe in the power for original source material to tell stories, for the benefit, growth, and education of all. As such, my focus in career development has been on the stuff-side of the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museum) world. I now know that there is no neutrality in the notion that cultural heritage institutions are collectors. The history of our holdings are rife with trauma. Colonial powers have taken materials they had no right to. Museums have continued imperialist tradition by continuing to claim ownership, and presenting in often uninformed or insensitive ways materials from hosts of cultures. Even the ways in which we categorize and catalog materials has been done in a privileged and tone-deaf manner.

Museums cannot be neutral, every choice made betrays priorities and biases - even when we are not aware of them. Fortunately, there are efforts to address these problematic sides of collections and archives. NAGPRA is one very small step in a positive direction, necessary but limited in scope. Mukurtu collections management system is an even more meaningful effort. This open-source platform allows communities to assert sovereignty for their cultural materials - in how these items are cataloged, shared, and keyworded. On the stuff-side of GLAM work, we need to be open to change and we need to move away from institution-as-owner-and-authority. Dr. Kimberly Christen gave a wonderful presentation on all of these ideas, and it is something all museums need to embrace.

Outside of collections as challenges in the context of social structures and uneven power, museums must also address our institutions in the context of our local and global communities. I have been slowly coming around to the idea that without people, without outreach and support to and interest by these people, these materials have little value. The human-side of GLAM institutions is thus crucial. This is likely obvious to most, but it’s dramatically altered the way in which I think about my work and the work of my peers. It was therefore striking and confirming that our group discussion focused on people, not the museum as a collecting entity. The museum is an organization of people, and it is for the benefit of other people. As such, our identities and challenges as staff can help to inform how we might think about the public we serve. Additionally, this groundwork can help us to determine what change can come from within. It is not enough to offer more programs for local public school kids. We need to embrace and reflect the change we want internally before we can hope to expect meaningful change externally. And as a member of our group succinctly pointed out, everyone wants change, but not as many want to change.

At the end of our too-short introductory MASS Action session, each group chose a representative to say once sentence that summed up the discussion in their group. It was interesting to listen to the range of ideas expressed: accessibility, audience selection, donor relations upholding the status quo, institution size as both a pro and con, the need for vulnerability. As the meeting ended, what stuck out in my mind was the notion that our reputation and identity could hold us back.

Art museums have a reputation for being elitist, for catering to and telling the stories of a select few. I think this is even more-so the case of a museum like ours, which does not focus on contemporary practice, but rather attempts to be encyclopedic in scope. It may not seem necessary, then, for our museum to embrace issues our world faces today head-on. Our behemoth size make timely, meaningful internal change difficult. It feels akin to correcting the course of the Titanic - we will need buy-in from hundreds of staff and from all levels of management. Our reputation as one of the top art museums will make external change difficult. We need to find a way of moving beyond this way of defining the institution, so that it can be a more welcoming, inclusive community center.

I do not think these challenges are insurmountable, and I do not think we should use them as excuses to not even bother trying. I hope that we can continue coming together to reflect on who we are and what we can do, so that change can happen internally and externally. This is a good start to larger conversations here at the Art Institute of Chicago, and I sincerely hope we can turn the conversation into action.

Last month I finished up the last class to complete the George Washington University graduate certificate program in Museum Collections Management and Care. Over the course of four semesters, I was able to grow my skill set and gain a solid foundation in basic collections management principles. The first two classes focused on preventive conservation, the third in general management protocol, and the final in legal aspects of the field. I knew about some of the ideas behind these topics from internships and jobs in museums, but these classes provided me with much more in-depth information.

Each class also provided a wealth of resources, so even if I come across challenges in the future and do not know the solution, I feel confident in knowing where to look for answers. I also enjoyed the structure of the classes: all were taken with the same classmates, so we built solid relationships in spite of the courses being offered exclusively online. I know those enrolled with me, along with my professors, will continue to be an amazing network of knowledge, experience, and camaraderie far into the future.

It might seem as though these topics could not effectively be offered without in-person instruction, but the program requires that you have access to museum or archival collections. This is crucial, as much of the coursework is reliant upon the application of principles taught. As a result, I was able to use what I learn to improve the physical and intellectual control over the photographic institutional archives at the Art Institute of Chicago, where I work. Projects included assessing the temperature and humidity levels, monitoring dust, and analyzing and advising on copyright, right to privacy, and right to publicity issues in the archives. You can find out more about work I’ve undertaken here, both class-related and independently.

It’s reassuring to look back on the progress that’s been made in the archives over the last year or so. The resources are perceived to have greater value, awareness of the content represented is growing, resources and manpower is being dedicated to continued work, and the museum has applied for an IMLS grant to further sustain the archive project as a whole. This was my first opportunity being a grant writing project lead (class projects provided a fantastic starting point for this!), and with the help of many talented colleagues, hopefully we will secure funding for additional funding. This award will be used for contract positions for the digitization and rehousing of photographic archival material, as well as image record creation.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to have begun managing the archives. Eighteen months ago, I was curious about the contents and care of the archives but lacking the knowledge and experience to tackle the work. I still have much to learn, but I’m happy that my coursework has helped our department to make progress in the care and management of our resources.

I had the opportunity to help out again this year with the National Public Housing Museum’s exhibit for the second Chicago Architecture Biennial. The office space was used as the venue, and Archeworks the host and owner of the space co-curated a portion of the show. Housing as a Human Right: Social Construction was the title, and it reflects both the mission of the museum and key aspects of public housing the show focused on: health, policing, activism, entrepreneurial acts. I assisted with researching and coordinating visuals and writing and organizing interpretive text. The team did a wonderful job, and the opening was packed full of visitors. The exhibit has been extended through February, and it’s worth a visit.

In conjunction with the exhibit, the museum hosted an event soon after the opening, which addressed the current state of public housing in Chicago. Shaq McDonald, of the film 70 Acres in Chicago, led a walking tour of the nearby Cabrini low-rise apartments and the surrounding neighborhood. He talked about his memories of housing in the years before a majority of it was closed by the CHA, and about the current tension between long-time public housing residents and the new, affluent condo and homeowners in the area. I appreciated his insight and openness in walking us through his home. I was conflicted with the notion of a large group of outsiders acting as tourists, but Shaq was good about setting some ground rules. This will be an ongoing challenge for the museum: avoiding any exoticisation of public housing and “othering” of its residents.

The tour was followed up by a panel discussion of CHA’s Plan for Transformation and wider issues of the deprioritization of public housing and other support systems in cities across the United States. Shaq was joined by Roberta Feldman and Chuy Garcia, and they addressed a wide range of factors contributing to the unfortunate state of housing today. The audience was active in asking questions and bringing in additional personal experiences. While it was a frustrating topic to learn more about, it was encouraging to be filled by a room of folks who obviously want the status quo to change for the better.

This year’s Architecture Foundation Open House Chicago didn’t disappoint. The first day brought constant rain, but that didn’t prevent me from getting out to explore. I visited sites in west town, the loop, river north, the lower west side, bronzeville, and grand boulevard over the course of the weekend. These are just a few of my phone snaps, I’m looking forward to editing my camera photos soon.

During our visit to the Oregon Historical Society, we spent most of our time in the permanent exhibit, Oregon My Oregon. It covered history from the earliest tribal groups to the post-war decades. Topics covered include geography, native languages and culture, exploration, missionaries, the Oregon Trail, 20th century immigration, and the growth of Oregon industries. Having been revamped in the last 15 years, the museum addresses what many would deem to be controversial topics: workers rights, systemic racism, genocide, environmentalism. This treatment of real issues, and the role they play in the state’s history and identity, helped the museum to win some accolades. From the exhibition website:

“The American Association of Museums has awarded the Modern Oregon Issues segment of Oregon My Oregon a Silver 2005 MUSE Award in the History and Culture category. The visitor-controlled display plays video narratives of current events in Oregon. The unique interface is themed on Portland's famous Newberry's lunch counter and its countertop jukeboxes. Selecting a topic from a jukebox initiates a presentation featuring real Oregonians discussing the issue.”

The museum was also recognized by AASLH for its permanent exhibit. It felt refreshing that the institution addressed very real parts of the region’s past, rather than simply retelling or glorifying the same story we’re often told of western expansion and settlement. Hopefully more museums will take a cue and more honestly portray the stories they’ve set out to tell.